Young men between the ages of 18 and 35 are uniquely prone to using moral and political discussions to shame others and assert dominance, regardless of their political beliefs. This pattern suggests that hostile political expression may be driven less by specific party loyalty and more by an underlying desire for social status. The research was published in Political Psychology.
Political dialogue has grown increasingly moralized in recent decades. People frequently frame standard policy disagreements as absolute moral imperatives. This shifts routine debates into battles between perceived good and evil, a dynamic that deeply divides societies.
As political stances become tied to personal virtue, a phenomenon known as moral grandstanding has emerged. Moral grandstanding involves publicly expressing moral superiority to boost one’s own social positioning. It is related to the colloquial concept of virtue signaling, but it specifically focuses on the performative element of political expression.
Moral grandstanding is distinct from simple moral conviction. Someone with strong moral convictions holds deep beliefs that shape their attitude and behavior. Grandstanding is unique because of its social motivation. It is not just about holding deep beliefs, but about displaying those beliefs to audiences to reap social rewards.
People do engage in public moral discussions for genuinely principled reasons, such as advocating for social justice or ethical values. Moral grandstanding differs because the underlying motivation is a desire for validation rather than a commitment to moral outcomes.
Sebastian Jungkunz, a researcher at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg and the University of Bamberg in Germany, set out to understand the demographic roots of this behavior. Previous work focused heavily on how psychological traits like narcissism predict grandstanding in public spaces. Jungkunz wanted to determine how these actions vary across age, gender, and political affiliation.
Moral grandstanding manifests in two distinct ways. The first is prestige-seeking grandstanding. This occurs when individuals signal their moral goodness to like-minded peers to inspire admiration and gain respect within their own group.
The second type is dominance-seeking grandstanding. In this version, individuals denigrate their ideological opponents, shaming them as morally or politically deficient. The goal is to aggressively outcompete rivals and assert social dominance.
Jungkunz theorized that these motivations would differ by age and gender. Young adulthood is a transition period for identity formation, and younger individuals often navigate highly polarized digital spaces. Social media platforms provide immediate peer validation, which can strongly incentivize performative moral displays. Algorithms on these websites often reward emotionally charged content, giving prominent visibility to expressions of outrage.
At the same time, young men often face unique societal pressures regarding status. Sociologists describe masculinity as a precarious status, meaning it requires ongoing public demonstration and is often perceived as easily lost. Dominance-seeking moral grandstanding can function as a compensatory behavior, allowing young men to publicly perform their masculinity by verbally crushing their opponents.
Women are often socialized to prioritize relational harmony and communal values. Based on this historical socialization, Jungkunz suspected that women might engage more in prestige-seeking grandstanding. He hypothesized they might use moral expression to build solidarity or foster collective action rather than to humiliate others.
To test these ideas, Jungkunz analyzed survey data from 8,420 adults across Germany, France, Greece, and Hungary. He selected these countries because they represent a wide variety of political cultures, institutional histories, and levels of polarization. The survey participants reflected a representative sample of adults ranging from 18 to 69 years old.
The researchers used a specific survey questionnaire called the Moral Grandstanding Motivations Scale. Participants rated their agreement with various statements on a seven-point scale. To measure prestige-seeking, participants responded to statements like, “I want to be on the right side of history about moral/political issues.”
To gauge dominance-seeking tendencies, participants rated statements asserting a desire to put down others. For example, they reacted to the prompt, “When I share my beliefs, I do so to show people who disagree with me that I am better than them.” The survey also collected comprehensive demographic data, including age, gender identity, education level, and the political party the participant planned to support in the next national election.
The data revealed striking demographic patterns in how people express moral superiority. The starkest differences were found in the dominance-seeking category. Young men between the ages of 18 and 35 consistently reported the highest levels of dominance-oriented moral grandstanding.
This means young men were the most likely group to use aggressive moral outrage to put down their opponents. This pattern held true almost completely independently of which political party the young men supported. Whether they backed progressive Green parties or conservative far-right factions, young men exhibited similarly elevated scores for dominance-seeking behavior.
Women scored substantially lower on the dominance scale. The gap between men and women in dominance-seeking behavior was particularly wide among the youngest respondents. A typical 18-year-old man scored a full point higher on the dominance scale than a woman of the exact same age.
As people grew older, their tendency to dominate political opponents through moral shaming steadily declined. The gender gap in dominance-seeking behaviors narrowed considerably among middle-aged respondents. Among the oldest respondents, the differences between men and women were virtually nonexistent.
Prestige-seeking grandstanding followed a completely different pattern. The desire to look inspiring and gain the respect of peers was widely distributed across all ages, genders, and political affiliations. Most people surveyed showed some inclination to share their moral beliefs to look good to their social group.
Contrary to the initial hypothesis, women did not show higher levels of prestige-seeking grandstanding than men. Both men and women were generally equally likely to use moral posturing to build up their reputations within their own groups.
When it came to political affiliations, basic party preference mattered surprisingly little for either type of grandstanding. Instead, the extremity of a person’s political views mattered much more. Individuals with highly radical views on either the far-left or the far-right were more prone to moral grandstanding than those with moderate views.
These findings challenge the common narrative that aggressive political discourse is purely a product of left-wing or right-wing party platforms. Instead, demographic factors and individual psychological needs shape how citizens participate in public debates. Young men appear especially drawn to combative, status-seeking rhetorical strategies.
Jungkunz noted a few caveats regarding the methodology. The research relied on online survey panels, which might slightly overrepresent people who are very active in digital spaces. Because the modern internet highly rewards antagonistic engagement, this sampling method could have influenced the severity of the findings.
Future research could explore these dynamics in different political environments, such as the two-party system in the United States. Researchers might also investigate how local economic contexts affect moral grandstanding. For instance, scholars could evaluate if individuals dealing with economic hardship are more likely to engage in dominance-seeking behaviors out of frustration.
Understanding these demographic patterns could help address the root causes of political polarization. If hostile political speech is driven by young men competing for status, resolving ideological disagreements alone might not cool societal tensions. Finding alternative, constructive ways for young people to establish their social identities might be necessary to improve public discourse.
The study, “The age of virtue signaling: Moral grandstanding as competitive display among young men,” was authored by Sebastian Jungkunz.
Headline options
- Young men lead the charge in hostile moral grandstanding
- Virtue signaling and social dominance among young men
- Why young men use moral outrage to dominate political debates
- Status seeking drives toxic political discourse among youth
- Demographics predict moral grandstanding better than politics
- Age and gender shape how we argue about morality
- The psychological roots of performative political outrage
- Does your political party predict your virtue signaling?
- How social validation fuels aggressive political debates
- Prestige versus dominance in everyday political arguments
- Are young men the most aggressive moral grandstanders?
- Why online political debates are so full of moral shaming
- The performative nature of moral superiority in politics
